Eating Trumah

Yevamot (9:5) | Yisrael Bankier | 7 years ago

Towards the end of the ninth perek, we learn about how a woman’s
ability to eat trumah can change. The first case (9:5) deals with a
bat yisrael who marries a kohen. By virtue of that marriage she is
allowed to eat trumah. Even if her husband dies, provided she has a
child from that marriage, she can continue to eat trumah. If she
subsequently marries a levi she can no longer eat trumah but can eat
maaser; this is even after her husband passes away provided she has
had a child from him. The Mishnah continues that if she then marries
and yisrael she is treated as she was originally – a bat yisrael.
The Mishnah continues that after her third husband passes away, she is
still treated like a bat yisrael if she had a son from that marriage.
If the sons then progressively pass away in reverse order, then after
each one she returns to the status of the most recent son that is alive,
until finally she returns to being a bat yisrael.

The second Mishnah (9:6) follows a similar pattern however involves a
bat kohen that married a yisrael, then levi and then finally a
kohen bearing a child from each marriage. Once again, her status with
respect to whether she can eat trumah appear to follow the pattern
that it is equivalent to either her husband or the most recent child
that is still alive. If all husbands and children pass away then she
returns to being a bat kohen and can eat trumah.

The Aruch La’Ner poses the following questions. In both cases at one
point she is left widowed from a kohen, levi and yisrael with sons
from each marriage. Why is it that in the first case she is not allowed
to have trumah while in the second case she can?

The Aruch La’Ner initially answers that in the first case she was a
bat yisrael. Once widowed, her capacity to eat trumah rested with
her sons. However why should one son take preference over another?
Consequently she returns to her original status. In the second case, she
was a bat kohen and could originally eat trumah. The only thing that
prevents here from doing so would be her son from the yisrael; yet why
should one son take priority over the other?

The second answer that the Aruch LaNersuggests is as follows. In the
first cases, since the final husband caused her to cease from eating
trumah, the son from that marriage maintains that status. In the
second case, since the final husband enabled her to eat trumah, the
son from that marriage enables her to continue doing so. In other words,
according to this understanding, her final status is important as
opposed to her original status.

The Aruch La’Ner provides two practical differences between these two
understandings. The first is if in the second case she was originally a
bat kohen. According to the first understand she would be able to eat
trumah as she returns to original status. According to the second,
since the youngest of her three (live) children was from an yisrael
she may not. The second example would be if in the first case involved a
bat yisrael. According to the first understand she would not be able
to eat trumah as she returns to original status. According to the
second, since the youngest of her three (live) children was from a
kohen she would.

The Aruch La’Ner understands that the Rambam (Trumot 6:19)
maintains the second understanding. The case brought is of a bat
yisrael that marries a yisrael, has a son, is widowed, then marries a
kohen, has a son and is widowed once again. The Rambam rules that
she is allowed to eat trumah since the last son enables her to eat
just like his father did.1

The Aruch La’Ner is unsure of where the Rambam learns with certainty
that the second understanding is correct. He suggests that perhaps it is
because the pasuk teaches that “if she has no [offspring] she may
return to her father’s house.” According to the first explanation, even
if a bat kohen has a child from an yisrael as long as she also has a
child from a kohen she may return to her father’s house.

1 It is noted in the Yalkut Bi’urim (Metivta) that Radvaz
understands the Rambam differently than the Aruch La’Ner. We had
explained that in presence of the three sons, her final status was
important. If her last son was a kohen she can continue eating
trumah while if it was a yisrael she cannot start. The Radvaz
however understand the last son is important as the son takes the place
of his father and it is as if the father is still alive. Just as the
later marriage overrides those previous, so too does that later son.